If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

After reading the article it's a tuff call.. but I would have to keep it simple. The kid was in this man's garage that late at night. The fact that they set a trap to catch the burglar who had already stolen items for their garage is irrelevant to me. If the kid wasn't in his garage he would not have been shot. I personally would not have opened fire into my house like that but that's just me. And with out seeing my target I would not shoot.

But I think the fact they made comments about setting the trap to shoot someone will be what gets him a murder charge.

More evidence will come out, but I haven't heard any statements or evidence yet that suggests the teenager in the garage did anything to suggest a threat to the safety of the shooter.

The shooter himself, and his wife, both said the garage was dark.

Basically it sounds like the shooter opened fire simply because someone was in his garage.

I agree there is no evidence the kid was a threat.

But the defense is going to use the fact the garage was dark and could not see if he was armed or not. It's easy for us to armchair the debate, but a jury will make the call.

With the info in the article I don't know how I would call it if I was on the jury. But I do believe the man has a right to protect his property. And if he was burglarized multiple times and no results from the police he needed to do something.

I plan to shoot anyone that comes into my house uninvited. Is that premeditation?

Now you know how messed up the courts are in Florida. It would be tough to win unless the intruder was armed. And I have no doubt if the state could get a witness to say you would shot anyone coming into your house, you know they would use it to show premeditation.

What imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury was this guy facing when inside his house looking at the baby monitor screen?

The law gives homeowners some leeway in setting traps to catch folks who try to steal from them, but pretty much draws the line at going from the safety of your home to arming up, going outside, and shooting pretty much blindly into your garage. "I heard a noise" is not going to stand up once the fact is introduced - and hammered away at - that the guy left the safety of his home to go shoot somebody - anybody - because he was tired of getting ripped off.

“It wasn’t his intent to kill because he didn’t know who was in there, and where the person was, and what was in the person’s hands as far as weapons.” Tell me another fairy story. He knew there was someone in the garage and he took a gun to go look for that person when there was no imminent threat to himself or his wife. What was he going to do - shoot to wound someone? And why would he even shoot to wound if he did not know what was in someone's hands?

I feel sorry for the guy. I am greatly puzzled why a German exchange student who is reported to be such a goody-two-shoes would be out burglarizing a garage.

But most of all I am saddened to read how many would approve of what this guy did. He just became the next poster boy of the anti-gun crowd that will be used to show that we are all just waiting to shoot someone.

The only reluctance I would have as a juror at his trial would be knowing that the judge will not allow me to chew him out.

stay safe.

"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
----Allahpundit

I don't see many "approving" just saying that it may have been reasonable.

Don't want to get shot don't go steal things in the dark on others property.

I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Don't want to get shot don't go steal things in the dark on others property.

TRUTH!

None of the People (well maybe a few) complain when others "bait" LEOs. In this case someone died.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

my .02 buck

To me this guy baited to hunt a PERSON. If he was worried about being ripped off, he COULD have SHOULD have tightened his security to the garage. He shouldn't have left the door open and a pocket book laying out. We as responsible gun owners and protectors of ourselves and family don't go out and bait people. From what I read, it's an unjustified homicide. If they wanted to trap a suspect, then install the garage door opener INSIDE the house. When the suspects walk in, then shut the door. Average dummie wouldn't think to open the safety in the overhead to get out. They'd be locked in a dark garage, and waiting for a cop. That is a better trap for a perp/suspect/dumb kid. And his "gun control" was attrocious...Spray and pray, and no clue who was in there.

The Second Amendment is in place
in case the politicians ignore the others

I eagerly await all of the evidence coming out. I would like to know why the teenager was inside the garage because it makes me think about a story when I was younger....

One day when I was about 14 my friend and I walked to our local park and played football. On the way home we were throwing the football back and forth to each other. At one point I "went long" and my friend threw the ball wide and it rolled into someones yard and into their open garage. I didn't hesitate for one second to walk into their open garage to go retrieve my ball.

When I got into the garage I couldn't immediately find it. The ball had rolled behind some stuff. After I picked it up and was walking out, the homeowner came around the side of the house (they were gardening) and asked why I was in their garage. I showed her my ball and she laughed and said "oh, I was hoping you were here to help me carry some of the fertilizer".

My friend and myself carried two bags of fertilizer for the lady to her back yard.

Wifey, wife

“I’m just waiting to shoot some (expletive) kid,” Kaarma allegedly told stylists at the Missoula salon.

Said the affidavit: “He told (the stylist) that he had been burglarized a few times, that was why he was waiting up at night to catch someone and shoot them. (She) reported that the defendant was being extremely vulgar and belligerant. She asked the defendant to quit swearing and he said he could say ‘whatever the (expletive)’ he wanted.”

This guy is a real piece of work.
I hope he makes someone a good wife someday in prison.

"He took the steps that no one wants to take and shot,” Ryan said. “It wasn’t his intent to kill because he didn’t know who was in there, and where the person was, and what was in the person’s hands as far as weapons.”

If he didn't know who was there, then why did he shoot?
If he didn't know where the person was, why did he shoot?

This lawyer is losing the case in his opening comments.

"The castle doctrine states that when a forcible felony occurs within a home, the resident of that home has a right to defend himself. However, it also states that a person who decides to use that force must believe they are at risk of serious bodily injury or death."

1. It was not forcible entry. They left the garage door opened.
2. It was not within his home. The garage is not where he lives.
3. If he claims he was at risk of serious bodily injury or death,
a. Why did he leave his home where he was safe?
b. He already claimed he didn't know who was in there, where they were or what they had in their hands. He can't say on the one hand 'I didn't know what was going on' and then on the other say 'I was afraid because I didn't know what was going on.'
He's trying to plead ignorance to counter the claim that he set a trap to lure them in and kill them.

This guys defense is stepping all over itself with contradictions and ignorance of the law.

"He took the steps that no one wants to take and shot,” Ryan said. “It wasn’t his intent to kill because he didn’t know who was in there, and where the person was, and what was in the person’s hands as far as weapons.”

If he didn't know who was there, then why did he shoot?
If he didn't know where the person was, why did he shoot?

This lawyer is losing the case in his opening comments.

"The castle doctrine states that when a forcible felony occurs within a home, the resident of that home has a right to defend himself. However, it also states that a person who decides to use that force must believe they are at risk of serious bodily injury or death."

1. It was not forcible entry. They left the garage door opened.
2. It was not within his home. The garage is not where he lives.
3. If he claims he was at risk of serious bodily injury or death,
a. Why did he leave his home where he was safe?
b. He already claimed he didn't know who was in there, where they were or what they had in their hands. He can't say 'I didn't know what was going on' and then say 'I was afraid because I didn't know what was going on.'

This guys defense is stepping all over itself with contradictions and ignorance of the law.

I agree with all of your points except (2). I believe under Montana law the garage is covered under the Castle Doctrine.

(47) "Occupied structure" means any building, vehicle, or other place suitable for human occupancy or night lodging of persons or for carrying on business, whether or not a person is actually present, including any outbuilding that is immediately adjacent to or in close proximity to an occupied structure and that is habitually used for personal use or employment. Each unit of a building consisting of two or more units separately secured or occupied is a separate occupied structure.